Pending org + daycare claim REQUESTS (someone applied to claim but admin hasn't approved). Excludes the long tail of seed orgs that have no contact info yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately describes the tool as listing pending requests, implying a read-only operation. It explicitly mentions exclusions, which adds transparency. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or that it is safe to call, which would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence followed by a clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes meaning, and the core purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a clear description, it is mostly complete. It explains exactly what data is returned and what is excluded. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or how results are sorted, which could be useful for an admin tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema requires no additional explanation. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters as none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists pending org and daycare claim requests. It specifies the resource type ('claim REQUESTS') and the status ('someone applied but admin hasn't approved'), distinguishing it from other admin tools like admin_pending_discoveries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on what is included (pending claim requests) and excluded (seed orgs without contact info). While it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when-not to use, the exclusion criterion offers implicit guidance. With sibling tools like 'admin_pending_discoveries', the distinction is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are clearly grouped by prefix (admin_, daycare_, org_, parent_) and within each group have distinct, non-overlapping purposes. For example, parent_add_kid vs parent_remove_kid are unambiguous.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with role prefix and action_noun structure. Minor exceptions like 'nearby_programs' are standalone and do not disrupt the overall consistency.
With 72 tools, this is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the tools cover multiple user roles, the count is excessive and likely overwhelming for an agent, falling into the 'too many' category.
The tool set covers most core workflows for parents, orgs, and admins, but notable gaps exist: there is no tool to create a program or daycare, and admin tools for approving pending claims or discoveries are missing, leaving dead ends.
